SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 197

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Dutt : Ranganath Misra
Harish Chander Verma
Versus
Kayastha Pathshala Trust
Case No. : 842 of 1988
Date of Decision : 3/10/88

Headnote:

Construction subject - Suit for permanent injunction - Decreed - Suit has now been deemed ad permanent injunction has been ordered against the respondents - In appeal against decree for permanent injunction the High court by impugned order has permitted defendant-respondent herein to raise construction subject to condition that in event of decree being affirmed construction shall have to be pulled down – Held, convenience parties and equity arising in facts of case, a larger principle is involved in matter - On face of a decree for permanent injunction is it appropriate for appellate court to allow it to be nullified before appeal is disposed of – Court are of view that answer has to be in negative - Vacate order ofd High court and direct status quo as existing today to continue during the pendency of appeal before High court - High Court is requested to dispose of appeal within six months from date of receipt of this order – Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside tags or similar) and your specific question or task (e.g., summarize key terms, identify clauses, extract obligations), and I'll analyze it accordingly using the specified referencing format with square brackets for each reference (e.g., (!) (!) ).


(1) SPECIAL leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. When the suit for permanent injunction was pending the question of interim injunction had come before the High court and when the HighCourt had granted injunction at the instance of the present appellant the respontent moved this court by way of special leave petition and the same was dismissed. The suit has now been deemed ad permanent injunction has been ordered against the respondents. In appeal against the decree for permanent injunction the High court by the impugned order has permitted the defendant-respondent herein to raise construction subject to the condition that in the event of the decree being affirmed the construction shall have to be pulled down.

(2) APART from the convenience the parties and equity arising in the facts of the case, a larger principle is involved in the matter. On the face of a decree for permanent injunction is it appropriate for the appellate court to allow it to be nullified before the appeal is disposed of. We are of the view that the answer has to be in the negative.

(3) WE accordingly allow the appeal, vacate the order ofd the High court and direct status quo as existing today to continue during the pendency of the appeal before the High court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of the receipt of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top